The SAFE Node
The failure of British negotiations to join the SAFE (Security Action for Europe) program is not merely a commercial dispute. It is a symptom of deeper friction: the difficulty of integrating a post-Brexit economy into the European security architecture, when physical infrastructure for cooperation is already defined and credit lines are tied to continental standards. London’s attempt to negotiate privileged access without fully accepting the rules of the game has met resistance from Paris and Berlin, highlighting a structural problem: sovereignty in an interdependent world is negotiated through control of flows, not rhetoric.
Mechanics of Power: The Cost of Autonomy
SAFE, with a budget of 100 billion euros, aims to stimulate European armament production and reduce dependence on the United States. The program relies on a system of guaranteed loans accessible to EU members that commit to investing at least 2% of their GDP in defense. The UK, despite its desire to participate, has faced a practical obstacle: the need to provide equivalent financial guarantees without benefiting from collective state support. This is not a liquidity issue but an architectural one. After years of debt crisis, the EU has built a guarantee system based on internal solidarity. Britain’s exit created a vacuum, and attempts to negotiate ad hoc agreements have clashed with the logic of the system.
Friction and Asymmetry: Who Bears the Cost?
The failure of SAFE is not symmetrical. For British defense industry, it means lost contract opportunities and increased production costs. For the EU, it confirms its strategic autonomy, even at the cost of excluding a traditional partner. But the most significant cost is political: the demonstration that sovereignty in this context translates to limited autonomy, and that cooperation requires structural alignment. The UK, while maintaining its military capabilities, faces a dilemma: investing more in defense without relying on European support or accepting a subordinate role in the continental security architecture.
The Doctrine Test: Strategic Realism
Strategic realism, which emphasizes the importance of power and national interest, finds confirmation in this case. The EU’s decision to exclude Britain from SAFE is not motivated by ideological hostility but pragmatic considerations: the need to protect its economic and security interests and ensure system coherence. However, realism does not fully explain the dynamics. The EU acts not only on rational calculations but also based on political and symbolic considerations: the will to assert its autonomy and send a clear signal to London.
Tactical Horizon: Monitoring Flows
In the next six months, it will be crucial to monitor investment flows in the European defense sector. If SAFE succeeds in stimulating domestic production and reducing dependence on the US, Britain’s position will weaken further. Conversely, if the program faces difficulties, London can exploit the situation to negotiate a new agreement or promote bilateral alternatives. It will also be important to observe the evolution of EU-US relations and the impact of the war in Ukraine on European defense policy.
The Irreversible Threshold
The failure of SAFE is not the end of cooperation between Britain and the EU in the defense sector, but a turning point. London must decide whether to pursue an illusory strategic autonomy or accept a more modest role in the European security architecture. The key question is not whether Britain can afford to join SAFE, but whether it can afford not to.
Photo by Ben Kupke on Unsplash
Texts are independently processed by AI models